mgteich

Sure, we could always use a stud who falls into our laps. However, I think that we are set at more positions than is the norm. Also, fewer of our top vets are potential free agents. My only concerns are Light and Mankins.
================

This is a year of focus on the defensive and offensive lines, on RB and on the OLB position. As always, we have the offseason to meet some needs, although the schedule caused by the negotiations could cramp our style some.

I see about 5 picks in the top 100, plus one of two carried forward into 2012. That's plenty for those needs still left after free agency. And some have noted, it is not clear that a running back should even will be picked in the top 100.

patchick

You know, if you're counting positions that have a full and respectable roster but could "use a stud," I think you have to include DL and OLB, too. Look at the players under contract for 2011:

OLB
Cunningham, Ninkovich, Banta-Cain

DL
Wilfork, Ty Warren, Wright, Pryor, Brace, Deaderick, Love

I see opportunity for those positions in the draft/FA, but not need per se. In fact, the only positions where signings are a clear "must" are OL and RB. That's pretty remarkable.

cstjohn17

I think you are exactly right, some will get traded to next year. Prior to the draft free agency will have all positions basically set, some deeper than others.

The other option not mentioned is the ability to trade draft picks for veterans or or the ability to trade up in the draft. The Patriots have done a wonderful job amazing useful assets. Kind of like Theo has done for the Red Sox.

mgteich

I disagree.

I don't think that we are set at DE or OLB. I think that these positions are areas of need, along with RB and the OL.

patchick

But unlike RB and OL, everybody's returning from this year (with the exception of swapping Warrens). They may not be areas of strength on the roster, but they're not holes either.

Sciz

Right now, I don't see an upgrade at OLB or DE unless we're talking about the Raiders' pick, and I could see Bill going OL or something with that pick.

mgteich

How is there any more "hole" at RB than DL or OLB? Green-Ellis and Woodhead are our running backs and are adequate enough to not call the postion a "hole". Also, we could probably keep one or more of Taylor, Morris, Faulk and Clayton if we wanted to.

I view DL, OLB, RB and the OL as needs.

The OL is obviously the more serious need with Light and Mankins not under contract, Koppen in his last year, and Neal on his last legs.
==============

With 3 picks in the first 35, we can hope for help in the defensive front seven and the OL.
==============

patchick

I think we're using different criteria. To me, a player who isn't under contract doesn't count, period. After all, you could say "we could probably keep one or more of Light and Koppen if we wanted to," just as you did about the RBs. So having only 2 RBs signed = obvious hole in the roster, especially since that's a very injury prone position where you need reliable depth.

But perhaps the core difference is that you see gaping holes in the defensive front 7 right now, whereas I see a reasonable roster with opportunities to upgrade.

Edit: Yet another way of thinking about it...I believe the common misperception that the Patriots draft "BPA" regardless of need comes from the fact that they try to eliminate glaring needs BEFORE the draft. It seems to me that it would take just a couple of signings to do that this time around -- Mankins, a mid-level RB and probably Light. Then you have a full roster and can approach the draft without panic or having to reach. A DL or OLB is not, IMO, necessary to achieve that complete roster.

mgteich

FRONT SEVEN
Yes, I see holes right now.
I don't see much production from DL backups Love, Pryor and Brace.
Our OLB's are barely adequate with only Fletcher as backups.

RUNNING BACKS
Yes there will be roster holes for backup running backs (compared to the present roster). We have Taylor, Morris and Clayton.

I agree that we are getting even less from the running back backups than from the backups in the front seven.

BOTTOM LINE
Perhaps our disagreement is indeed sematics. Sure, there is a hole at RB, even presuming that RFA Ben-Jarvis and ERFA Clayton are back. But then, the hole created by losing Taylor and Morris can be filled by street free agents. Belichick can obviously do at least at well in free agency.

Ochmed Jones

I continue to hope BB uses his plethora of picks to strengthen the front lines on both sides of the ball.

The O Line position is the one position that I think will be addressed prior to the draft. And while I think Mankins is history, I do believe Light could be resigned.

On the D Line, we may have numbers signed for next year, but almost all except Wilfork are upgradeable.

OLB may also have bodies signed, but none of them could start for any 3-4 team in the NFL, except ours.

RB is a very intriguing position. in the past BB has used a first round pick for one, and he has traded a second round pick for a high mileage veteran. He clearly values the position, and if the right underclassmen declare, there will be a couple of good ones on the board when he picks.

With RBs BB value ball security very highly. It took BB over two years to learn to trust Green Ellis, but since he has turned to Green Ellis, production and ball security have been decent to good, but Green Ellis lacks speed, quickness and athleticism so a lot of yards have been left on the table on a lot of plays.

How does BB reconcile the limited production combined with high intangibles that Green Ellis brings vs. the athleticism and playmaking ability that a stud RB can inject into our offense.

I think that BB will be on the lookout, fairly early in the draft, for a RB that can compliment what Green Ellis and Woodhead offer individually. Someone that can come in on second down and produce effectively regardless if the play is run or pass. (Which is what Taylor was supposed to be, but he has no tread left on the tires and BB should have known this prior to TC.)